


\ 



Similarities Between the 

American and Irish 

Revolutions 



Address before the Quarterly M'eeting of the 

Society of the 
Friendly Sons of St. Patrick 

In the City of New York 

(Instituted 17^-1) 



By 

THOMAS H. MAHONY 

OP BOSTON. MASSACHUSRTTS 



Hotel Astor, New York 
Monday Evening, Mav 2, 1921 



Dfi 962 
./1443 

Copy I 




Similarities Between the 

American and Irish 

Revolutions 



Address before the Quarterly Meeting of the 

Society of the 
Friendly Sons of St. Patrick 

In the City of New York 

(Instituted 1784) 



By 

THOMAS H. MAHONY 

OF BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 



Hotel Astor, New York 
Monday Evening, May 2, 1921 



■^M 22 !922 



,A^\'b 



n^ 



FOREWORD 

IT was one of the great philosophers who said that the ideal 
form of government was a benevolent despotism. No believer in 
republican institutions will for a moment grant the truth of that 
statement ; and yet the informed student of affairs must admit that 
in certain essentials, monarchical government is, by its very nature, 
more efficient than a government of the people. It is more easily 
set in motion. It has a higher state of preparation for decisive 
action. It is generally staffed by men whose tenure of office is more 
certain and more extended, and thus has the benefit of greater 
experience with practical problems of government. More than all, 
it has a ruling class to which the special privileges belong as a 
matter of right, and their direct interest in their own continuance 
in power makes them reduce the art of government to a science, so 
far as possible, and solve the problems that arise from time to time, 
not by chance but by inherited skill, sharpened by all the knowledge 
gained from work along the same lines in past generations and 
centuries. 

That such conditions make for tyranny is of no importance in 
the eyes of the members of such a class, as for them the end sought 
is not the liberty of a people but the preservation and extension of 
the right of a minority to rule a country and to impose their will 
upon weaker neighbors or distant colonies. 

The English Empire is governed in this way by a ruling class 
which has in human history no equal in skill, adroitness, resource- 
fulness and demonstrated capacity for intrigue ; for power of making 
successful combinations against an enemy ; and for ability to make 
the worse appear the better part. 

It would be impossible to set forth here a tithe of what could be 
adduced historically along these lines. 



An instance in point of how carefully planned in advance and 
ruthlessly executed in fact, are their campaigns against all those 
with whom they fight was given to the members of the Society in 
the extraordinarily illuminating address of Mr. Thomas H. Mahony 
of the Boston Bar, at the Quarterly Meeting, at the Hotel Astor on 
May 2nd, 1921. Mr. Mahony, who is at once scholar, student of 
history, essayist and political philosopher, as well as one of the 
leading members of the younger bar of Massachusetts, a State 
famous for the ability and high character of its lawyers, had chosen 
as his subject "Similarities between the American and Irish Revo- 
lutions." 

He has collected and set forth, with moderation of statement 
and delightful directness, a series of similarities in action, thought, 
plan and statement between these two great events that is simply 
astounding. 

Even close students of history will open their eyes at finding 
the whole plan of campaign, carried on today against the people of 
Ireland, only a repetition of the conditions against which Washington 
and our forefathers had to fight for seven long years of actual war 
and for many years of preliminary if intermittent guerrilla war 
before they succeeded in driving tyranny, let us hope forever, from 
our shores. 

His address must bring home, with increasing force to thought- 
ful men, the conviction that Ireland today, as America in the Revolu- 
tion, struggles not alone against the English government, but against 
that system of imperialism of which the English ruling class is the 
last representative. 

May the contest in Ireland end — as it did with us — in complete 
independence — an end that will not alone enure to the advantage of 
Ireland and of the liberty loving peoples of the world, but that will 
bring the people of England themselves nearer to that liberty which 
they deserve and of which they have so long been deprived! 

DANIEL F. COHALAN, 
President of the Society of the Friendly Sons 
of St. Patrick in the City of New York. 



TT is in one way most surprising that we should find in America 
-■-so much opposition to Ireland's struggle for independence. The 
colonies rebelled against the same country, and established this 
nation as a result of such rebellion. Yet there are many who boast 
of their Americanism, their love of America's history, her traditions 
and her institutions, who yet deny to Ireland the right to follow 
America's example. 

The great trouble is that such people forget the history of the 
American Revolution, if they ever knew it. They forget the causes 
which brought it about, the principles for which it was fought, and 
the events which transpired in the period of its duration. A survey 
of that period and a comparison of it with the Irish Revolution of 
today reveals a most startling similarity in all these matters, so that 
one who endorses the American Revolution, to be consistent, must 
necessarily endorse the Irish Revolution. 

It is to be remembered that most of the colonies had been first 
settled by citizens of England, and that such colonies were, there- 
fore, in the first instance British Colonies. Such other colonies 
as had been settled by citizens of other nations came into the 
possession of England by cession, so that at the time of the Revo- 
lution all the revolting colonies were in fact British Colonies. 

Firstly let us consider the legislative oppression which led to the 
American Revolution. The colonies, while France controlled Can- 
ada, suffered but little from any control by England, being able to 
force such domestic legislation as was desired in the colonies by 
means of their legislative control of the governor's salary and of the 
imperial contributions, and openly ignoring any legislative action of 
Parliament which restricted in any way the commerce of the colonies. 

After the removal of the French menace in Canada in 1763, 
however, England then set out to enforce all the legislation which 
had previously been enacted for the purpose of restricting the activi- 

S 



ties of the colonies, and also enacted new and additional measures 
of the same nature. Among such measures were the following: 

1. The Navigation Act of 1651 preventing all nations except Eng- 
land from trading with the colonies. 

2. The Navigation Act of 1660 restricting the right to export 
goods from the colonies and prohibiting the export of sugar, 
tobacco, etc., save to England. 

3. The Trade Act of 1663 prohibiting importation to the colonies 
save in English ships. 

4. The Trade Act of 1733, taxing spirits, sugar and molasses im- 
ported to the colonies. 

5. The Trade Act of 1764 taxing coffee, wines, etc., appointing 
courts of admiralty to try cases of smuggling, involving the 
use of the Writs of Assistance. 

6. The Stamp Act, 1765. 

7. The Tax on paint, paper and glass, 1766. 

The colonists at first took the position that there could be no 
taxation without representation, and that representation in Parlia- 
ment as a practical matter was impossible. They later insisted that 
the English Parliament had no right whatever to legislate for the 
colonies. 

With reference to Ireland, England's legislative coercion be- 
gan with the first invasion under Henry II. Among such coercive 
measures are the following: 

1. The statute of Kilkenny and similar acts to denationalize the 
Irish. 

2. The confiscations and plantations under Henry the Eighth, 
Elizabeth, James I. and William III. 

3. The persecutions of Cromwell. 

4. The penal laws. 

5. Land Laws. 

6. The laws which destroyed Ireland's trade in cattle, wool, pro- 
vision, shipping, linen, cotton and glass. 

All these measures were intended to enslave or exterminate the 
Irish people, but bitterly and successfully the Irish people have 
resisted and defeated both purposes, and are today fighting more 
fiercely than ever against the same tyrannical oppressor. 

It will be seen, therefore, that the legislative oppression exer- 

6 



cised by England against Ireland, while somewhat the same in kind 
as was exercised against the colonies, was intensified a thousandfold. 

In addition to such measures as above stated, the colonies, as 
set forth in the Declaration of Independence, complained of the 
following grievances against England : 

"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world." 
"For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by 

Jury." 

"For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended 

offences." 

— and, referring to the king — 

"He has kept among us, in times of Peace, Standing Armies, 
without the consent of our legislatures." 

"He has affected to render the military independent of and 
superior to the Civil Power." 

"For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us." 

"For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any 
murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these 
States." 

"He has abdicated government here by declaring us out of his 
protection and waging war against us." 

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our 
towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." 

One hearing this for the first time might believe that Jefferson 
was writing of present day events in Ireland. And well might 
Seward, Lincoln's War Secretary, say of Ireland : 

"For less than the least of all the wrongs of which Ireland 
complains, America rebelled." 

And truly did Thurlow Weed, the great Republican, say in 1884: 

"America dissolved the Union with England and raised the 
standard of rebellion, to redress but a tithe of the wrongs which 
have been inflicted on Ireland." 

If for these causes the colonies were justified in rebellion in 
1776, Ireland is a thousand times more justified in her rebellion 
today. 

Secondly, let us review the principles fought for in the American 
Revolution. 

The philosophy of government as taught by Grotius of Holland, 
Pufifendorf of Germany, Burlamaqui and Beccaria of Italy, Montes- 

7 



i 

quieu of France, Locke and Hooker of England, had effectually 
destroyed in the minds of men the old belief of the "Divine Right 
of Kings." In its place they had set up the doctrine of "The Rights 
of Man." 

"Natural society," said Burlamaqui, "is a state of equality and 
liberty; a state in which all men enjoy the same prerogatives, and 
an entire independence of any other power but God. For every 
man is naturally master of himself, and equal to his fellow creatures 
so long as he does not subject himself to another person's authority 
by a particular convention." (Principles of Natural Law, p. 38.) 

In the colonies Paine was preaching the same doctrine. In his 
Essay on the "Rights of Man" he summed up this doctrine in the 
following words : 

" . . . individuals themselves, each in his own personal and 
sovereign right enter into a compact with each other to produce 
a government, and this is the only mode in which governments 
have a right to be established, and the only principle on which 
they have a right to exist." 

The colonists rested their entire claim to separation from Eng- 
land upon the basis of this philosophy. The Declaration of Inde- 
pendence proclaimed it to the world as the sole justification of 
America's nationhood. If those principles are unsound, America 
as a nation did not come into existence as of right, but solely as a 
result of force. The Declaration of Independence, reflecting such 
philosophy, proclaimed that : 

"... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by 
their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these 
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure 
these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving 
their just powers from the consent of the governed. That when- 
ever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, 
it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. . . ." 

Later France, following America's example in this philosophy 
of government, at the time of the French revolution, made a similar 
declaration of principles, known as the "Declaration of the Rights 
of Man." In this declaration France proclaimed that : 

"the national assembly doth recognize and declare, in the pres- 
ence of the Supreme Being, and with the hope of His blessing 
and favor, the following sacred rights of men and of citizens : 

8 



"I. Men are born and always continue free and equal in respect 
of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can only be founded 
on public utility. 

"II. The end of all political associations is the preservation of 
the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights 
are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression. 

"III. The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty: 
nor can any individual or any body of men, be entitled to any 
authority which is not expressely derived from it." 

In Ireland, Molyneux, as early as 1697, was arguing Ireland's 
rights to legislative independence upon this same philosophy and 
quoting in support thereof the writings of the Englishmen Hooker 
and Locke. Molyneux asserted that: 

"All Men are by Nature in a State of Equality, in respect of 
Jurisdiction of Dominion. This I take to be a Principle in itself 
so evident that it stands in need of little Proof. 'Tis not to be 
conceiv'd, that Creatures of the same Species and Rank, promis- 
cuously bom to all the same Advantages of Nature, and the Use 
of the same Faculties, should be subordinate and subject one to 
another; These to this or that of the same Kind. On this Equal- 
ity in Nature is founded that Right which all men claim, of 
being free from all Subjection to positive Laws, 'till by their own 
Consent they give up their Freedom, by entering into Civil So- 
cieties for the common Benefit of all the Members thereof. And 
on this Consent depends the Obligation of all H«man Lczyj ; inso- 
much that without it, by the unanimous Opinion of all Jurists no 
Sanctions are of any Force." (Case of Ireland Stated, Ed. — 1795, 
pp. 101, 102.) 

Clearly such principles by their very nature are universal, and 
necessarily universal in their application. If they applied to the 
American colonies in 1776 they apply to Ireland with even greater 
force today. For, as has been stated, the colonies were British by 
discovery, colonization or cession ; the colonists were born to or 
accepted British Nationality. On the other hand, Ireland was entirely 
distinct from England in race, language, culture, politics and history. 
Ireland was not discovered, colonized or ceded to England, the 
latter's only existence in Ireland being based on force. 

Thirdly, let us compare some of the events of both Revolu- 
tions : 

We find the accusation flung far and wide by so-called Ameri- 
cans that the Irish Republican Army is no army at all, but a body of 
criminals and assassins, without uniforms, who, by their guerilla 



warfare have spread a terrible reign of terror through Ireland, and 
that for such reason Ireland's claims are not to be considered. 

Only the other day I heard of a story about the atrocities being 
perpetrated by the Irish Republican Army. It is told of one or two 
Irish Republican soldiers, who, lying in wait behind a stone wall, 
armed with small pistols, made a cowardly and dastardly attack upon 
a British armored tank and an armored motor lorry. 

But the American Revolution was no society event. It was, 
on the other hand, says the Historian Fisher: 

"A rank and riotous rebellion against long established author- 
ity." 

"It was an out and out rebellion against legitimate control be- 
cause we wanted to govern ourselves . . . and believed that 
the colonial position was at its best essentially a degradation to 
manhood, or as we called it at the time, 'political slavery.' " (Am. 
Rev. and Boer War, pp. 7, 8, 11.) 

If the Irish are wrong in defending themselves against the in- 
vader by guerilla methods, then the colonists were wrong in applying 
the same methods to a similar rebellion against that same tyrant who 
vauntingly boasts that it can rule any and every people better than 
those people can rule themselves. 

The colonists were armed with muskets and shot guns ; they 
were the ridicule of the British regulars. When possible they seized 
the guns of the Britishers, as do now the Irish. The colonists were 
never decently armed until the French sent munitions in 1778. The 
men served a few weeks and then went home. Captain Grayden, 
describing the Army in New York, said : "The irregularity, want 
of discipline, bad arms, and defective equipment in all respects, of 
this multitudinous assemblage, gave no favorable impression of its 
prowess." (Memoirs, Ed. 1846, p. 147.) 

We have all seen pictures of -the Revolutionary soldiers, and 
doubtless have admired their magnificent appearance in their bufif 
and blue uniforms. We have all taken it for granted that the army 
was uniformed, regularly organized, and fought regular battles. As 
a matter of fact, but a select few, mostly officers, had uniforms. 
The vast mass of the rebel troops had no uniforms at all. 

10 



Lafayette in 1777 said that the "eleven thousand men, but 
tolerably armed, and still worse clad, presented a singular spectacle 
in their parti colored and often naked state ; the best dresses were 
hunting shirts of brown linen." (Memoirs, I, p. 19.) 

Washington in an order of July 24, 1776, refused to recommend 
any uniform because of the expense and difficulty of providing the 
same. 

That was the kind of an irregular army that Washington led. 
It melted away from time to time, and about all he could do was to 
recommend and not command. In New York in 1776 he had 18,000 
men, but after the battle of Long Island, when he crossed to New 
Jersey, he had but 3,300, the rest having scattered and gone to their 
homes. 

Washington himself prepared to carry on guerilla warfare. 

In Irving's life of him appears a letter in which he said that if 
further pressed "we must then retire to Augusta County in Virginia. 
Numbers will repair to us for safety and we will then try a predatory 
war. If overpowered we must cross the Allegheny Mountains." 

Guerilla or predatory warfare had no taint of shame for Wash- 
ington. God knows that England hated him even as she hates 
Ireland's guerilla fighters today under Collins. But where Wash- 
ington trod no man need hesitate follow. 

In discussing irregular fighting, it is to be observed that there 
was no fighting in Ireland until after the Declaration of Independ- 
ence in Easter week, 1916, which was indeed an open declaration 
of war against England, and a notice of what English troops might 
expect in Ireland. Independence was not declared in the colonies 
until July, 1776 — yet prior to that time much fighting occurred. 

In March, 1770, the Boston Massacre took place, comparable 
indeed to the Massacre at Bachelor's walk in Dublin. 

In June, 1772, the British Cruiser Gaspee ran aground off 
Rhode Island and was attacked by rebels, the crew being captured 
and the vessel burned. 

11 



On December 16, 1773, the tea was damped into Boston Har- 
bor. The British historian Lecky described this affair as "The 
Tea Riot of Boston," and another Britisher, Green, described it as 
"a trivial riot." But, says the American, Fisher, this was "the one 
moment of all that troubled time in which no compromise was pos- 
sible. It was the one supreme moment in a controversy supremely 
important to mankind, and in which the common sense of the world 
has since acknowledged that they were wholly in the right." 

On December 13, I4., 1774, another guerilla fight was staged 
by the Irishman, John Sullivan, in an attack on Fort William and 
Mary at Portsmouth. He seized the fort, captured the force man- 
ning it, and seized 100 barrels of powder and 100 small arms, which 
supply was later used at Bunker Hill. (Mass. Hist. Soc, Proc. 
1873-1875, P. 450.) Now an attack by Sinn Fein troops upon a 
barracks is called a barbarous outrage on civilisation. Wherein 
does it differ from the "glorious war" of the Revolution? 

In June, 1775, the O'Brien brothers of Machias, Maine, in the 
first naval fight of the Revolution in a most irregular way, by means 
of pitchforks, axes and a few rifles, stormed and captured a British 
cruiser. 

On April 19, 1775, General Gage sent 800 men from Boston to 
Concord to seize the rebel stores. Warned by Paul Revere, the 
guerilla minute men by the most guerilla-like warfare, drove the 
troops like panting dogs back to Boston. 

A contemporary account of this battle, most interesting today, 
is given in the Salem Gazette April 25, 1775. 

"The British pillaged almost every house they passed by, break- 
ing and destroying doors, windows, glasses, etc., and carrying off 
clothing and other valuable effects. It appeared to be their design 
to burn and destroy all before them; and nothing but our vigor- 
ous pursuit prevented their infernal purpose from being put in 
execution. But the savage barbarity exercised upon the bodies 
of our unfortunate brethren who fell was almost incredible ; not 
contented with shooting down the unarmed, aged, and infirm, they 
disregarded the cries of the wounded, killing them without mercy, 
and mangling their bodies in the most shocking manner." 

The method of treating the same affair in England is seen by 
the following, London Gazette, June 10, 1775 : 

12 



"On the return of the troops from Concord they were very 
much annoyed and had several men killed and wounded, by the 
rebels firing from behind walls, ditches, trees, and other am- 
bushes ... as soon as the troops resumed their march they 
began to fire upon them from behind stone walls and houses 
. . . and such was the cruelty and barbarity of the rebels, 
that they scalped and cut off the ears of some of the wounded 
men who fell into their hands." 

Woodrow Wilson, in his history describing this fight, says : "The 
untrained villagers could not stand against them (the British) in the 
open road or upon the village greens, where at first they mustered, 
but they could make every wayside covert a sort of ambush, every 
narrow bridge a trap in which to catch them at a disadvantage." 
(Hist. Am. Peo., II., p. 223.) And now, because the Irish troops, 
with a State of War recognized by the British courts as existing 
between England and Ireland, happen to ambush a British force, 
upon a military expedition similar to that of Gage's troops, it is 
"assassination" for the Irish, while it was glorious War for the 
colonists. It is war, and ere long England will recognize it as 
a most telling war, a war that may shatter the Empire, 

On June 17, 1775, over a year before the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, on Bunker Hill another guerilla fight was staged, so 
irregular that it is still disputed wfiether Prescott or Putnam was 
in command. 

When these so-called Americans rant about the Sinn Fein 
Reign of Terror they forget the treatment meted out to the 
Loyalists in the American Revolution. They forget that the 
one means whereby the patriots controlled the situation and 
prevented the troops and loyalists from overwhelming the rebels 
was a "reign of terror." Loyalists were tarred and feathered, 
ridden on rails, gagged, bound, and locked in rooms with every 
opening sealed and a fire smoking on the hearth; their homes 
were raided for arms, and riddled with bullets, their horses and 
cattle were poisoned, mutilated, and killed; judges were torn 
from the bench and prevented from holding court ; even the home 
of the Royal Governor of Massachusetts and all the furniture 
therein was wrecked. In fact the term "Lynch Law" originated 
during the Revolution. (Fisher— True Hist. Am. Rev., Ch. VIII.) 

13 



Compared with the reign of terror in the Colonies, the "reign 
of terror" in Ireland is but "peaceful persuasion." In the col- 
onies civilians were the sufferers while in Ireland it is but the British 
army of occupation and its subordinate arms that suffer. 

Fourthly let us survey the British methods of warfare dur- 
ing the American Revolution and see how they compare with 
their present day methods in Ireland. 

In the matter of propaganda intended to stir up hatred 
against the colonies we have observed the British report of the 
battle of Lexington, containing the charge that the patriots re- 
sorted to scalping. This is typical of the reports published in 
England of all matters referring to the colonies. It is to be 
noted that although Lecky, in his history of this battle, goes 
into great detail, even giving the numbers on each side, killed, 
wounded, and captured, he says nothing about scalping by the 
patriots as he undoubtedly would have done if such an event had 
occurred. Green makes no such comment, nor does Guizot, the 
French historian. 

On the other hand we find ample evidence of atrocities upon 
the part of the British troops, and of scalping by their Indian 
allies. 

In July, 1778, Loyalists and Indians raided the Wyoming 
valley in Northern Pennsylvania. After the heroic resistance 
of a few old men and boys, the settlers including women and 
children were butchered and scalped without mercy, the village 
set on fire. The prisoners were thrown or chased into the flames 
and held there with pitchforks or laid in a circle and toma- 
hawked. There was another similar raid with similar results 
in the Cherry Valley of New York, and the whole northern 
frontier for months was deluged in blood until such raids were 
checked by General John Sullivan in 1779. (Fisher, Supra, pp. 
379, 380) 

In the fall of 1778 "No Flint" Grey raided, burned and 
destroyed New Bedford, Fair Haven, and Old Tappen on the 
Hudson, killing a large number of prisoners. (Stryker — Massacre 
near old Tappan.) 

14 



On October 15, 1778, Ferguson raided the Jersey coast at 
Egg Harbor and slaughtered his prisoners. (Stryker — Affair at 
Egg Harbor.) 

Prevost invaded South Carolina and desolated the country, 
burning and destroying houses, crops, food supplies, horses and 
cattle, leaving such a desert that over 1000 people starved to 
death. 

Matthews sacked and burned Norfolk and Portsmouth in 
Virginia, shooting unarmed people and allowing his troops all 
liberties with the female population. 

The British methods in Ireland today, are euphoniously 
termed "Reprisals." The burning and destruction of Cork, and 
numerous other cities and towns, the killing of unarmed people 
including women and children, the destruction of creameries, 
crops and cattle, show that British warfare is no more civilized 
today than it was in 1776. 

The shooting of four members of the Irish Republican Army 
on April 28, 1921, reminds one of the methods of Ferguson and 
Grey in 1778. These four prisoners were condemned for "levying 
war against the British Crown Forces." Lloyd George on No- 
vember 8, 1920 in the House of Commons stated that a state 
of war existed in Ireland. Following this Gen. Macready issued 
a proclamation declaring the British troops "in active service" 
in Ireland, and on February 24, 1921, the Court of King's Bench 
in Ireland judicially determined that a State of War existed in 
Ireland. By all rules of civilized warfare these four men were 
prisoners of war, yet they were shot down in cold blood as had 
been seven others before them. 

Another instance of similarity between the two revolutions 
is England's attempt to compromise. In 1778 Parliament sent 
a commission to the colonies, authorized to suspend the opera- 
tion of every statute complained of by the colonies. In other 
words everything was offered in the way of legislative inde- 
pendence if the colonies would merely retain the imperial con- 

15 



nection through "the king alone." (Fisher, Supra, pp. 370, 371.) 
This, of course, was rejected by the patriots. Washington said, 
"Let us accept nothing short of independence ... a peace on 
any other conditions would be a source of perpetual disputes." 
(Guizot — Hist. France V, p. 275.) So too we find England today 
attempting in every way to compromise with Ireland at anything 
less than separation, and true to the precedent of Washington, 
we find Michael Collins, the hope of Ireland, at the head of his 
guerilla fighters, scorning any compromise and openly declaring 
that his irregulars have the British troops beaten. 

We see running all through the American Revolution and 
the Irish Revolution an intense spirit of nationalism, intensified 
in Ireland by reason of her seven hundred and fifty-two years' 
struggle. The term "Self determination" of which we heard so 
much before the armistice, and have seen so little since is but 
an echo of the Declaration of Independence. It is the same 
spirit which succeeded in America that has ever animated Ire- 
land. 

Yet we find people such as Ex-Secretary of State Lansing, 
in the Saturday Evening Post, April 9, 1921, saying that "self 
determination" was but a catch phrase, given currency by Mr. 
Wilson ; that while the phrase itself expressed "a great political 
principle . . . generally recognized as morally right," yet, 
"the assumption that self-determination is a right inherent to man- 
kind is a menace to peace in ^^he world because it excites false hopes 
and produces political unrest that may develop into open resistance 
to established authority," and further that 

"The time has come when the belief in self-determination as 
an inherent right which ought to be applied in all cases and 
under all conditions should be denounced by the nations." 

This is a surprising doctrine, more surprising from an 
American, and yet most surprising from a former Secretary of 
State of the United States. 

To summarize Mr. Lansing's argument in a few words it 
appears as follows : 

16 



1. "Self-determination is a generally recognized moral rig'ht.'" 

2. The recognition or the application of that right may at times 
be inexpedient to some nations, 

3. The right of self-determination must therefore be denounced 
and cast aside. 

In other words, "If right conflicts with expediency, right must 
be subordinated." 

How can Mr. Lansing reconcile the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence and the American Revolution with his theory of scrap- 
ping Self-Determination. Every argument Mr. Lansing used 
relative to Self-Determination applied with greater force to the 
Declaration of Independence in 1776. 

The Declaration of Independence was at that time "a menace 
to peace in the world" because it did excite hopes and did "Pro- 
duce political unrest that (did) develop into resistance to estab- 
lished authority." It not only was a menace but it actually in- 
volved France, Spain, Holland, Spain and Prussia, as well as 
England and the colonies, directly or indirectly in the Revo- 
lution. 

"When you deny the right of a naturally separated people 
to struggle without end for independence, you deny the most 
fundamental and necessary, the most powerful and far reaching, 
the most scientific and well settled principle of moral conduct 
that history has disclosed." (S. G. Fisher — "Am. Rev. & Boer War" 
p. 22.) 

We have been taught, until recently at least, to glory in 
all that the Revolution meant, its principles, its battles, its 
dangers, its hopes, its wonderful outcome and meaning, not only 
for America but for the world. Would Mr. Lansing retrace one 
step of that Era? Would he change one page of its history? Yet 
every nation, every people upon the face of the earth today has 
as much right to believe in, to hope for, and to fight for liberty 
and self-determination as the colonies had in 1776. 

Lansing suggested the casting aside of this morally sound 
doctrine merely because its application might cause some dififi- 

17 



culty ; because it might forsooth, be inexpedient for England 
to recognize it ; because it might excite hopes of freedom and 
develop resistance to "established authority." In the presiden-. 
tial election last fall, by a plurality of seven million, the American 
people declared against the League of Nations and all that it 
meant and President Harding in his message to Congress of 
April 12, 1921, stated to the world that America had forever 
repudiated such a league. One of the greatest objections to that 
League was Article X, which provided that 

"The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve 
as against external aggression the territorial integrity and exist- 
ing political independence of all Members of the League. In case 
of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such 
aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this 
obligation shall be fulfilled." 

Under this article the entire world would be frozen into 
inaction. Any progress toward liberty, would be practically 
impossible. No people anywhere, at any time, might hope for, 
or fight for liberty. All subject races would be doomed for all 
time to servitude for any attempt at liberty would necessarily be 
resisted by the nation denying such liberty, and under the guar- 
anty of all other members of the League, such attempt would be 
forcibly suppressed by the joint efforts of all such members. 
America refused to deny any people the exercise of that sacred 
right of revolution which brought America into existence. 

Yet Mr. Lansing's theory of denying the right of self-deter- 
mination to any and all peoples, would have exactly the same 
efltect as Article X of the League of Nations. 

This was the theory of government entertained by the so- 
called Holy Alliance, (1819) in supporting the divine right of 
Kings . In the document which has been more or less generally 
accepted as embodying the terms or the principles of the agree- 
ment entered into by the Holy Alliance appears the following: 

"Article L The high contracting parties being convinced that 
the system of representative government is equally incompatible 
with the monarchical principles as the maxim of the sovereignty 
of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, and in the 
most solemn manner, to use all their efforts to put an end to the 
system of representative governments, in whatever country it may 
exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those 
countries where it is not yet known." 

18 



It was the promulgation of such principles that called forth 
the Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine goes to the roots of the 
ever-recurring conflict between autocratic pretensions and demo- 
cratic needs. It is interpreted in a few simple words by Richard 
Olney as follows : 

"It is that no European Power or combination of European 
Powers shall forcibly deprive an American State of the right and 
power of self-government, and of shaping for itself its own po- 
litical fortunes arid destinies." 

This same argument of inexpediency put forward by Mr. 
Lansing, and now used to divert America from consideration of 
Ireland, has been used many times in the past, and at every 
opportunity has been repudiated by America both in its applica- 
tion to foreign nations and America's relations with them. On 
January 19, 1824, when Greece was in rebellion against Turkey, 
Daniel Webster offered in Congress the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That provision ought to be made, by law, for 
defraying the expense incident to the appointment of an Agent or 
Commissioner to Greece, whenever the President shall deem it 
expedient to make such appointment." 

He was immediately assailed with the argument that such 
measure was inexpedient, that his motion might involve Amer- 
ica in international trouble. His answer in part, delivered from 
the floor of Congress, was, 

"As one of the free states among the nations, as a great and 
rapidly rising republic, it would be impossible for us, if we were 
so disposed, to prevent our principles, our sentiments, and our 
example from producing some effect upon the opinions and hopes 
of society throughout the civilized world. It rests probably with 
ourselves to determine whether the influence of these shall be 
salutary or pernicious." 

* * * * 

"What do we not owe to the cause of civil and religious lib- 
erty? to the principle of lawful resistance? to the principle that 
society has a right to partake of its own government? As the 
leading republic of the world, living and breathing in these prin- 
ciples, and advanced, by their operation, with unequalled rapidity 
in our career, shall we give our consent to bring them into dis- 
repute and disgrace?" 

* * * * 

"Does it not become us then, is it not a duty imposed on us, 
to give our weight to the side of liberty and justice, to let man- 
kind know that we are not tired of our own institutions." 

* * * * 

"When we have discharged that duty, we may leave the rest to 
the disposition of Providence." 

19 



From 1822 to 1853 the same right to self-determination and 
to fight for freedom was recognized on at least H different oc- 
casions with reference to the various South American countries, 
the Monroe Doctrine being relied upon to protect such South 
American nations in their struggle to maintain their freedom. 

In 1852 Hungary was in rebellion against Austria. Daniel 
Webster was then Secretary of State. Kossuth the rebel leader 
was invited to this country and saluted as a great hero. On 
January 7th, 1852, at a dinner given to Kossuth at Washington, 
Webster said : 

"Let it be borne on all the winds of heaven — that the sym- 
pathies of the Government of the United States, and all the people 
of the United States, have been attracted toward a nation strug- 
gling for national independence." 

* * * * 

"We may talk of it as we please, but there is nothing that sat- 
isfies the human mind in an enlightened age, unless man is gov- 
erned by his own country and the institutions of his own govern- 
ment. No matter how easy be the yoke of a foreign power, no 
matter how lightly it sits upon the shoulders, if it is not imposed 
by the voice of his own nation and of his own country, he will 
not, he cannot, and he means not to be happy under its burden." 

* * * * 

"Therefore, I say that wherever there is a nation of sufficient 
intelligence and numbers and wealth to maintain a government, 
distinguished in its character and its history and its institutions, 
that nation cannot be happy but under a government of its own 
choice." 

The Austrian Ambassador, Von Hulseman, on April 29, 1852, 
protested against this alleged encouragement and approval given 
by Webster to Hungary's rebellion, and in a most powerful 
answer to Von Hiilsemann, — a great state paper — Webster, said 
in part: 

"... if the United States wish success to countries con- 
tending for popular constitutions and national independence, it is 
only because they regard such constitutions and such national in- 
dependence, not as imaginary, but as real blessings. 

* * * * 

"... when the people of the United States behold the 
people of foreign countries . . . spontaneously moving to- 
ward the adoption of institutions like their own, it surely cannot 
be expected of them to remain wholly indifferent spectators." 

20 



And answering the argument as to expediency, Webster at 
the end of his answer stated, 

"Toward the conclusion of his note Mr. Hiilsemann remarks, 
that 'if the government of the United States were to think it 
proper to take an indirect part in the political movements of 
Europe, American policy would be exposed to acts of retaliation, 
and to certain inconvenience which would not fail to affect the 
commerce and industry of the two hemispheres.' As to this pos- 
sible fortune, this hypothetical retaliation, the government and 
people of the United States are quite willing to take their chances 
and abide their destiny. Taking neither a direct nor an indirect 
part in the domestic or intestine movements of Europe, they have 
no fear of events of the nature alluded to by Mr. Hiilsemann." 

The immortal Lincoln facing the same argument as to ex- 
pediency during the civil war answered that argument for all 
time. In his second inaugural address, he said, 

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty 
scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it 
continue until all the wealth piled up by the bondsman's two hun- 
dred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until 
every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another 
drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so 
still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and 
righteous altogether." 

And again he said, 

"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let 
us, to the end, dare to do our duty, as we understand it." 

America will always stand true to its Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, the principles and ideals therein set forth. It will 
never turn an unsympathetic or deaf ear to any people crying 
for freedom. The moment America denies the justice of her own 
creation, at that moment liberty dies in America — for liberty in 
America can only be maintained by supporting liberty every- 
where, 

England opposes this principle of self-determination with 
reference to Ireland as she did with reference to the colonies. 
It is imperialism's last effort against a rising nation. It is 
England's fight to preserve her Empire. 

England's Empire is the greatest known to history. This 
small island of less tlian 10 million people rules over a subject 

21 



population of about 500 million, and an area of approximately 
one-quarter of the earth's land surface, and all of its water sur- 
face. But there have been empires before, and their history 
undoubtedly will be that of England. 

Balshazzar feasted in his great hall and saw the end of his 
Babylonian Empire written upon the wall by an unseen hand, 
and lizards now bask in the sun undisturbed where he and 
Nebuchadnezzar reigned. 

Darius and Cyrus built a vast Persian Empire upon the 
ruins of Babylon, and saw the Greek, Alexander, smash their 
great structure into fragments, and today Darius and Cyrus are 
but names lost in the realm of mythology. 

Alexander then reared the great empire of Greece, and 
sighed for other worlds to conquer, and Greece was overwhelmed 
by Rome. 

The Caesars in turn constructed the most powerful empire 
known to history at the time. All the world was Rome's, and yet 
Rome was laid waste in 476 and is now returned to her original 
seven hills. 

The Holy Roman Empire, rising from the ruins of Rome, 
is but a name and Barbarossa still awaits in vain the call of his 
people. Spain's great empire perished with the Armada, Napo- 
leon's empire died at Waterloo and was forever laid to rest at 
St. Helena. England and Japan alone remain. 

The lamented Padriac Pearce, first President of the Irish 
Republic, in a short verse translated from the Gaelic of the 
middle ages which you may classify as you will, either as a 
model of Christian trust in God's justice, or a gem of Pagan ven- 
geance, looked into the future and read England's destiny in 
these words: 

"The wind has scattered into dust 
Alexander, Caesar, and all who followed their sway; 
Tara is green; behold how Troy lieth low 
And even the English 
Perchance their hour too will come." 

22 



,yB'?Af?Y OF o«. 

lif/iiw^ 



eill-«giif ^ 



*'fe-t 



fi '• r 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




021 377 773 7 



^^Bt^ 




Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



